U.S. Insists On Keeping Control Of Internet 1167
veggie boy writes "A U.S. official strongly objected to any notion of a U.N. body taking control of the domain servers that direct traffic on the Internet." From the article: "'We will not agree to the U.N. taking over the management of the Internet,' said Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department. 'Some countries want that. We think that's unacceptable.' Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control, which stems from the country's role in creating the Internet as a Pentagon project and funding much of its early development."
It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not broke... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some countries have been frustrated that the United States and European countries that got on the Internet first gobbled up most of the available addresses required for computers to connect, leaving developing nations with a limited supply to share.
They expect entitlement. What they should be doing is developing! They have the ability to start with IPv6 from the word go, and yet they want to fight over IPv4 space. If they innovate on thei
Re:It's not broke... (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me go back to my rich guy, poor guy analogy. I'm about the same as everyone around me. Except say I have a river flowing through my backyard. I build a waterwheel and use it to grind wheat into flour. I provide the service to people who live around me to use my grinder in exchange for some of their wheat. So... I'm richer than my fellow men for an idea I developed, and I "give back" to them by saving them the time it takes to grind the wheat by hand...
After a time, those people begin to depend on my grinder and the waterwheel. Does that mean they should own it? Or have a say in what I do with it? Its still mine isn't it?
I still don't like it, but perhaps its a closer analogy...?
Such Short Memories (Score:5, Funny)
The US wanted to invade to close all of the Pirate Training Camps, but the NeverNeverLand government was vocal across the internet in claiming there were no training camps, just theme parks. So what happened, the US kicked NeverNeverLands domain (.nn) out of the root servers. Suddenly no one in NeverNeverLand could email one another, the government collapsed and the country went into chaos.
But worse, nobody could access any
Now it's just an legend, like atlantis, and all because the US kicked
Remember it's happened once, it can happed again.
Re:It's not broke... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet was never "free" in either sense of the word. You may have had an Internet connection but someone paid for it. In my case, the university I attended paid for the connection and we got use of it in exchange for going to school there.
Napster was never declared "legal". It simply wasn't noticed and when it was, some people had problems with it. Just like if you steal a candybar from a store and never get caught, does that mean you didn't break the law?
A dialup connection can still get you anywhere if you have the right service provider.
Email is important, still. Just like anything else, there's always someone out there who will piss in the pool - spammers looking to make a quick buck or virus writers who do it for the hell of it.
Do you have any specific examples of where the US broke the Internet?
I'm entirely convinced that the UN can't even fix itself, which it needs to do badly before worring about taking on more responsibility (for anything).
Re:Why the U.N.? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is worked pretty well. You can pick up you phone in Bumfuck, Kansas, and call anywhere in the world. Even with the joke that is the US fragmented telecommunications system.
You can take an AM radio receiver from Asia, move to Europe, and listen to AM radio there. Or in the USA. International RF spectrum allocations are ma
My turn (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is Europes way of saying, "gimme, gimme, gimme, my turn to play with the toys!"
Many countries, particularly developing ones, have become increasingly concerned about the U.S. control
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What do developing countries have to do with jack? They're small and tend to have very poor Internet infrastructures. Does this mean that we're now supposed to turn over control to them so
Re:My turn (Score:5, Insightful)
I am assuming you have heard of a country called India, which is a developing nation. If you still don't get it, then get out of your basement and watch the real world. We are not in 70s anymore.
Re:My turn (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, couldn't resist
Re:India? right.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what I was thinking. Nothing against India, but they are not very politically stable at the moment. If the US has one thing going for it, we have a very stable government. What advantage would there be for us to give up a critical service like maintaining domain servers and give that management to other, less stable countries.
On to
Re:My turn (Score:5, Informative)
You [bbc.co.uk] tell [abc.net.au] me [bbc.co.uk].
"Villagers in India's Andamans and Nicobar Islands have denounced 'paltry' tsunami compensation relief they have received from the local government.
One woman received a cheque of just two rupees (less than five US cents) for damage to her coconut crops."
I also remember reading an article recently about how India's Air Force kicked our ass in joint training exercises
While the Indian Air Force did 'win' several (even 'most') of the engagements, to say they 'kicked our ass' is a bit misleading.
No AWACS, which the USAF would use if it were real
Older F-15C, lacking the upgraded, longer range radar, against newer IAF Su-30's.
No BVR engagements
The USAF sent 5 jets, and were outnumbered during the A-A portions of the exercise. This was a DACT exercise, not a 'beat the other guy' situation.
Having said that...
General Hal Hornburg, head of the US Air Combat Command [defencetalk.com] said "that we may not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as we once thought we were"
From an IAF official [telegraphindia.com]:
"We have appreciated the compliments but we are being pragmatic. We have no doubt about the technological superiority of the US Air Force. The exercise in Gwalior was a low-level one and involved conventional fighter tactics."
Spin it how you want, but that's not quite "kicking our ass"
Re:My turn (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My turn (Score:3, Insightful)
1. A big kick in the teeth while the British took the whole place over and ran it for hundreds of years,
2. Its freedom when Britain got tired of pissing around with it, and
3. It's current success (THEY didn't invent high tech, WE did -- and we gave it to them).
I studied history too, FUCKTARD. And they haven't had a single culture for four thousand years; it's been one group after another running the
Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me put it this way, I just stayed up most of the night documenting in my blog how the Chinese government abuses its people and ignores the very laws it put in place to protect its people. Now first thing in the morning, I hear that the UN wants to turn over full control of the DNS heirarchy to countries like China. Countries to whom "freedom" is just a word to be filtered. Countries where a constitution is just words on some expensive paper. Countries that care little for anything except maintaining their own power.
If we turn even the slightest control over to these people, it's a surefire guarantee that they will abuse it. They would use the technology to further oppress their people (illegally, I might add) and attempt to extend their influence to elsewhere in the world.
So I will repeat, the Internet is not broken. Don't fix it.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the above is pretty much why the rest of us are unconfortable with the current US administration being in control of the internet.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
No single country should. That's the point.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
What dream world are you living in? Hint: the net cash flow goes into the US, not out. This inbalance is the primary goal of US foreign policy. If you are thinking charity donations, well you don't even make the top 20 [nationmaster.com] However, presenting the image of "America the Saviour" is key to your rulers military campaigns, which is why this propaganda is installed in you from an early age. You went into Iraq to help the I
Re:Talking to myself (Score:4, Insightful)
The internet is composed of the networks of all countries. The initial internet grew out of a network of networks, of which DARPA's was the first and largest, true, but that part the US pays for is for one run by private companies, not 'the US' (the US doesn't lay those cables). The US part of the internet is not payed for by the US...it's payed for by the people who buy from their ISP's (although it is true that the TLD's in the US are indirectly payed for by the US, as universities do get grants for that kind of thing).
Point 3 is just out-and-out wrong. It shows such disregard for how the internet is setup, and the demographics, it's stunning. Korea is the most wired country on earth...other countries like the Netherlands are in top slots also...the US isn't anything special concerning people with net connections. Hell, EU vs US, the EU has many more peopel with net connections.
As for that final paragraph....it's
Re:Talking to myself (Score:4, Insightful)
You are a nitwit. The internet was developed for military communication that would be fault tolerant (as in nuke), it was later that the uni's started using it, finally branching out from universities to the public around the world.
The internet was founded and paid for by the US government.
Besides, once you go to a country code domain you go to that countries domain servers.
-nB
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
The internet is founded by the US in much the same way as the telephone network was founded by A. G. Bell (A scotsman incidentally). The fact that the telephone network is now worldwide means that a single Scotsman is no longer in control. Why not so with the Internet? It is an international network with international users, why not international governance?
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Enforse your DMCA laws on us by use of trade blackmail?
But it's not the present I'm worried about, more the future. Your current leadership has shown utter disregard for the international community. They cannot be trusted with the internet; I'm talking about people that have mounted a disinformation campaign to get people to back a counter-productive war for the benefit of their benefactors. How long before those benefactors (sorry, "campaign contributers") seek to control the internet for their own profit? Your government puts the needs of the people behind the needs of corporations. That is not how I would like to see the internet run.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Interesting)
Little did she know that's the type of wages one can get from working at McDonalds over here in the U.S.
My old job I made twice as much as her, and my current I'm making four times what she makes.
So yes, in a way the U.S. does care more about the people (ITS PEOPLE) because the competition is the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is worse economically for the most part. To
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Way to completely ignore basic economic facts. Did you ask her how much rent is in her area? How much a Big Mac is both countries? Did you subtract your medical/dental insurance from your monthly wage, as taxes paid hers? Or your pension vs her state pension, also paid thru tax? Just how much does it cost to live in each country for a month?
Only then will you know if you are "better paid". There is more to currency exchange than just the simple exchange rate. Hell, I make more an hour than some people do in a month, but if I were to move to those countries with a year of my pay, I'd never need to work again.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.destatis.de/themen/e/thm_loehne.htm [destatis.de]
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe he's pissed that he can't reverse engineer anything he wants. Maybe he's concerned he'll be sued because he found some way to put a Napster song on an iPod or an iTunes song on a Zen without changing the file format. His songs. His licensed property. His fucking right.
You make the rest of us look worst by attacking someone's comment in such an underhanded and dishonorable way. Do I want our government to "give up control" of the internet to countries like Russia, China, Pakistan, Sy
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
But that was the reason for invading Iraq! "He might give WMD to terrorists"* You can't have it both ways!! :-)
*Of course, there were no terrorist links, and no WMD, so the "we have always been at war with Eurasia" thinking now is "it was for the democracy of the Iraqi people".
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Funny)
Banned me from bidding on items in the "Adults Only" section of Ebay on the grounds of my Nationality. If I was a citizen of the US I would be able to bid, but according to Ebay, because different countries have different ages of consent, I'm not eligible. I'm damn near 30.
Now admittedly, I don't think that our representitives in Europe are lobbying for the ability of people like me to purchase artwork of the female members of t
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3)
Not to offend you, but are you republican by any chance? (Coz you know republicans never listen during a debate and just keep ranting). Who said any thing about some thing being broken. Do yourself a favor and READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE. Internet is not broken, people are not trying to fix it. But what they are trying to do is to make sure that US is not the only country incharge of it. They have good reasons, do you want me to list it?
Re:Talking to myself (Score:5, Insightful)
Got to respond to this one. Use your own logic:
The existing system, works quite well, thank you very much. If the rest of the world doesn't like it, they are perfectly capable of setting up their own DNS system and encouraging the use of it. For them to demand to be given control of a system setup, funded, and run, by the original creators of the system is just absurd.
You don't like? Just go setup your own system, prove it's better, and people will switch... Just like Linux...
mod parent up! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm quite fine with the current internet how it is. I don't see the US really doing much evil with the internet, and the current 'internet' DNS system IS the US' baby. Look at China, they basically already have their own 'internet'. This is just a bunch of whining democrats who don't know anything, an
Re:Talking to myself (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that would be a new feature. A feature, that I might add, comes with significant risk. The US currently imposes no restrictions worth mentioning on domain names. Yet in comparison, countries like Iraq [marcaria.com] don't allow registrations by private citizens. And what if the UN fails to properly maintain the root servers?
Right now, the system works, and works well. I have seen no compelling reason to change it. If someone can actually point to a reasonable improvement that outweighs the risks, then I'll happily agree with ceding control. But right now, it's just political and nothing else.
Re:Talking to myself (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Talking to myself (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I'm pretty certain that's the very definition of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." i.e. The idea behind the "don't fix it" concept is that improvements always come with a risk. In this case, the risk is high that the Quailty of Service will drop considerably.
So we have to weigh on one hand the fact that the DNS system does everything that's needed today against allowing countries to control their own domain names and international fundi
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
That just goes to show you how little influence is exerted by the US government on the internet. Do you really think the administration wouldn't love to have a big ceremony "reopening" the
Like people have been saying. It is not broken. Don't fix it. And moreso please don't let the UN fix it. I wouldn't be worried about many of the European contries some crontrol, but letting China get anywhere close
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:5, Informative)
It might be worth dropping the silly jingoism and having a look at how the world actually works. International telecommunications are already being coordinated (very successfully) by a UN agency, and have been since 1947. http://www.itu.int/home/ [itu.int]
And they're not that great at it. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
What if Taiwan wanted to register http://republic.tw/ [republic.tw] ? Right now they can because they control their own DNS, but what if the US was ardently against TW independence, and controlled
Part of being a good citizen of the world is allowing for countries
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, so the Iraqis had to register through a foreign company. Big whoop. At least they could. Under current Iraqi regulations, private citizens are NOT allowed to have
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have a very peculiar view of the DNS system, most likely due to the fact you live in the US.
I live in Belgium, which has top-level domain name ".be". Any individual or business can register whatevertheylike.be. Do you not think that Belgium would rather control it's own domain rather than depending on another country to make sure root zone files point to a.ns.dns.be for the
As root files will always be necessary, I would rather have a central (neutral) authority guard over such systems that trust on a (not so neutral) country to allow me to use my domain.
Re:My turn: Democracy (Score:3, Informative)
The UN is hardly a neutral body, in my opinion. Unless neutrality is defined as making resolutions and threats of enforcement and never following through on them.
I'd sooner hand control over to the Swiss, who have a much better track record of real neutrality.
UN control of something important?! (Score:2, Insightful)
The organization that put Libya in charge of human rights. Yes, Brilliant.
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Please give me a break!
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and while the US doesn't have exactly a spotless record regarding human rights, it at least has the technical competancy to manage something like the internet and is a lot more financially sound than the UN. And it is not like there is any particular wonderful track record on human rights coming out of the UN, or its member nations as a group.
Re:UN control of something important?! (Score:4, Insightful)
The US is by no means perfect! But no other country has a proven track record of supporting other people's freedoms over the past 100 yrs. Furthermore, we have no obligation to turn over a system that we developed to promulgate and enable communication to the the CORRUPT UN, just because we were successful.
The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
To hand the Internet over to the UN is to hand control to a body based on the interests of free and non-free countries alike. The UN has no principals placing individual rights above consensus and political expediency. And wherever the UN cannot find consensus, it defaults to inaction, even where inaction allows continuous decline.
This is not a critique of the UN. The above works fairly well for mobilizing to help small countries in crisis. It works well when trying to avoid provoking a war, which is usually appropriate. The above does not work however, for furthering the spread of free* access to - and dissemination of - information.
Speech, not beer.
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
Emphasys mine.
If you believe that bullshit ideologic and ignorant statement, then i guess maybe you should have learnt history and looked around in the world. Shame that the USA still thinks its the "best est democracie" in the world while they are violating human rights on a daily basis.
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking about the future of the Internet here, you're talking about the past of the US. Look around yourself and tell me what's left of your individual rights after subtracting out the DMCA, PATRIOT, Eminent Domain and other Constitution-defying laws!
As for "the only country"... where did you learn this, the National Enquirer?
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
European Union has human rights constitution too (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong. See also:
In the UK, it is a common occurance for an Act of Parliament (a law) to be overturned by the European Court of Human Rights [google.co.uk] on the grounds that it infringes those rights. This is much the same process as a US law being found unconstitutional.
I've no reason to believe the EU and US are alone in having constitutions which grant rights to their indivi
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:3, Insightful)
See, your problem is that you assume the right to free speech must be held above all others, inc
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Funny)
ICANN is Canadian?
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
The *rest* of the world doesn't see America as the great land of opportunity anymore, but rather the great land of opportunists, where the average 'honest' guy fights an uphill battle against corporate litigation, pseudo-law that has been reinterpreted via corporate lobbyists to support their agendas (i.e. Software Patents), or military actions that sadly mirror the ones they use to justify who they are fighting (i.e. invading a country to protect its own sovereignty, when the hidden goal could only be oil).
America heaps over with great features and wonderful people, and produces some of the best of everything to be found on this planet, but don't for one second pretend that your country is somehow the last bastion of truth and freedom, and that the rest of the world, via the only legal global governing body, lacks not only the ability but the *right* to govern the internet.
And for those of you who will follow on with 1D patriotic 'fuck-you-and-the-donkey-but-obviously-not-a-repu
----
There's nothing wrong with pissing in the wind, just make sure you are facing the right way when you do it.
Re:The UN is incompatible with the internet (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong! (Score:3, Insightful)
Second of all, the WWW was NOT, repeat NOT, regardless of what you may have red in Dan Browns Angels and Demons, created by an academic working in switzerland. This is categorically not true, and the fact that it is not true is so well documented that I should not have to ever correct anyone about this
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Constitution of the People's Republic of China [people.com.cn]:
Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
See Also: (Score:3, Informative)
Sort of takes the edge off Article 35, doesn't it?
Re:Good (Score:3, Interesting)
Talking this up... (Score:5, Interesting)
i) Control of DNS is not the same as control of the internet.
ii) If the US started to exercise internet control via DNS, alternative root servers would likely appear almost overnight. Remember that old saw about "routing round censorship"? This time it's actually true.
iii) As a Brit, I applaud the current essentially hands-off control the US has. We get all the benefits, US tax payers cover the actual cost.
iv) The UN couldn't find it's arse with both hands. Of course, neither can Congress, but at the moment the system is up and running and they'd have to actively intervene to screw it up. Migrating something as important as this to a new bureaucratic body doesn't bare thinking about.
Re:Talking this up... (Score:4, Funny)
Never give Congress any suggestions with the words "actively intervene" and "screw it up" in the same sentence - they'll likely take you up on it.
Re:Talking this up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Isn't it that you've got a function that maps a string ("AMAZON.COM") to a 32-bit number (more for IPV6).
So here it is (for the mathematically inclined):
F: string -> number
Big deal, right? Anyone could plug in their own naming function, and they "control the internet?"
Indeed, as soon as the USA gets uppity, I would expect to see a distributed naming system up very quickly. There'd be chaos for a while -- but it wou
Two reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
2) Because that's what the UN actually wants. They don't just want TLD control, they want to regulate the Internet's content. The current head of the UN telecommunications committee is China's former minister of telecommunications, in other words the guy responsable for censoring their citizens. Slashdot linked to an interview with him some time ago which I just can't find now unfortunately where he makes it clear that he sees the UN have a greater regulatory role over the net and getting to decide what content is acceptable and not.
I say... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I say... (Score:5, Funny)
How 'bout the US keeps the Internet, and the UN can have AOL.
Re:I say... (Score:4, Funny)
No, no, no... that's a misparse... (Score:3, Funny)
UN Corruption (Score:4, Funny)
Oil for root, anyone?
--Saddam H.
Different spin (Score:5, Informative)
To me, looks like the US might not have a whole lot of choice in the matter, in the end.
Re:Different spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Speaking of the other countries metioned in TFA: Brazil, along with Iran, Cuba, China and others has created an impromptu "Likeminded Group" at the PrepCom3 meeting in Geneva that has continually insisted on the removal of US control.
Yea, with a group like that, I'm sure the US is ready to hand over the keys any day now.
So, they should do it anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)
They just have to have the will to do it.
Then all they gotta do is convince/coerce all of the Internet entities in their respective countries to use THEIR TLD servers, they become the de-facto TLDs for those countries...
There's nothing to stop them but their lack of will...
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Gross dismissed it as unacceptable.
"We've been very, very clear throughout the process that there are certain things we can agree to and certain things we can't agree to," Gross told reporters at U.N. offices in Geneva. "It's not a negotiating issue. This is a matter of national policy."'
The question is, why?
"Some negotiators from other countries said there was a growing sense that a compromise had to be reached and that no single country ought to be the ultimate authority over such a vital part of the global economy."
Could someone tell me why are they wrong? And if they are not wrong, what is this US opposition? If the USA doesn't like living in a world where there are multiple countries to deal with, they can just close their borders and shut down their trade. Noone will miss them.
It seems to me the US is playing "i don't want to do this and i won't tell why not". Those dealings are the most suspicious to me, as they are not only arrogant, but they cannot be sustained for a long time.
The Internet is of a growing importance, it shouldn't be held hostage by one single country just as no single country should have total control of anything which is used globally. I guess the EU thinks so too, because they set up their own GPS system. If the USA's position won't change, i guess people can just ignore the states and set up an alternative dns servers/architecture.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no knee-jerk patriot, but your argument is weak on a number of points. The Internet is not being held "hostage." What we're talking about is a set of protocols. Think about that. Protocols. Agreed upon methods of communication. Not exporting and enforcing our vision of "peace," not "free market ideals," not "democracy," but fre
The lesser of two evils? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is there a third alternative? Maybe decentralized governance? Self-governance? A meritocracy? Unpaid volunteership? Management by 1000 chimpanzees randomly pushing buttons?
The Internet is important to me. I'll feel troubled so long as I don't see an approach that works well and efficiently, is relatively bias and value neutral and allows reasonable freedom and privacy to the average user.
W.W.A.G.D (Score:4, Funny)
Next week on Slashdot, we ask you to send in your questions to Al Gore, creator of the internet. We'll give Mr. Gore the 10 best questions. So send them in.
[disclaimer: This is a joke, I am a democrate, I can make fun of my own, and G.W.B because... well because thats easy]
Oh, gotta control this too . . . . . . (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be just like the old one!
It should be about ip6 not dns (Score:5, Informative)
my $.02:
1) All the TLDs are snapped up only in European languages. This should piss off basically no one. Why, every country has its' own TLD. To whit, American techies had to use www.theregister.co.uk for years before they decided to make a www.theregister.com version. Why, because everyone in the UK was used to typing
2) All the IP blocks are snapped up by Europeans & North-Americans. I'd say they are late to the party, too bad - but it's a legitimate complaint. Without IP addresses, they can't do what they want. However, what they really should do is mandate IPv6 so that there are more blocks to go around. The people who have blocks now don't want to pay for it, but if the rest of the world want's it - everyone will have to go along (or loose out on business if they don't interoperate well). I mean, really, how many addresses are lost by using a class A (127.x.y.z) block for loopback?
Hey, look - shiny toy: I want it!!! If they really wanted, they could use new.net and IPv6. Waaaaaaah!
It's not the US government's choice (Score:3, Informative)
I think the US government fails to grasp that they don't have a choice in the matter. The root DNS servers are the roots because most DNS servers point to them in the root hints configuration. Any DNS server operator can point their servers to a different set of root servers by just changing that's in the root hints configuration. The question isn't whether the US government will allow a different set of roots but whether the alternate roots can convince the majority of DNS servers to re-point to them instead of the current roots.
And the above doesn't really matter directly anyway. The critical servers aren't the roots, really, but the TLD servers the roots delegate to, particularly the ones for the .com domain where it seems most of the biggest domain names are. That's where the real hands-on control is. The roots only affect things in a major way in that they determine what the TLD servers are for a given TLD. The only way alternate root servers can really affect things is if, in addition to getting a lot of people to use them, their operators can also convince people that using alternate, non-official TLD servers for the big domains is also a good idea. For practical reasons I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Web != DNS, ICANN = meh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Repeat after me:
DNS is *not* the web.
ICANN's not perfect, but if you look at how they operate, you'd be surprised to find out they weren't setup by the UN. They're clearly the product and brainchild of a bunch of bureaucrats. There are huge fees to apply and propose, and then they arbitrarily create new TLDs to sustain the new fees rolling in the following application period. They burn through their government contract cash when all they do is push paper around, and then ask for more like a fat kid with a food fetish.
If the UN really wants to take control, I say fine - fuck it, stop our government wasting some money on this albatross.
ICANN [icann.org]
"In 2000, ICANN introduced seven new gTLDs:
* (and by they, I mean the people who dropped the huge fee to apply for those gTLDs, as ICANN doesn't think them up only approve them)
All they ever did was introduce competition by having multiple registrars, and that's not exactly some amazing idea, it's something that was *long* overdue.
US Gov is wrong on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, each government should also have control of it's own DNS servers within it's own geography for maintaining it's commerce and communications sovereignty... but this is not contradictory to a Int Body governing the allocation of address blocks to each country or determining policy for TLDs.
The US Gov doesn't currently control the telephone number address space for other countries, why is the internet different?
On the negative side of things... I'm fairly certain that China is the biggest supporter of getting DNS out of US hands and into the control of a Gov they have influence over, namely the UN. China would probably love to have the ability to cut off their people from accessing anything outside of China without a dispensation for commercial communications from their gov.... this will happen if the UN gets control and it will be really sad, but the Chinese people need to confront their gov on this one and demand more rights... if the people do, then the international public shoud support them against their gov via sanctions to not communicate with China, nor to trade with them. It will be messy but in the end will be better than treating them like the spoiled teenager that they are acting like. ("sorry Li, you can't drive the car cause you're not responsible enough" except Li is 30 years old and needs to go to work... so it should be "Li, if you get a DUI you go to jail. If you get into an accident and kill someone, you're going to jail. Be responsible. We won't bail you out.)
To the U.N. haters: (Score:5, Informative)
A. the U.S. stopped underhanded tactics such as witholding money owed to the U.N.
B. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against the proliferation of WMD re. Israel
C. the U.S. stopped vetoing resolutions against genocide
And that's just for starters! Please be in no doubt - WRT the U.N. America has a track record of putting its own interests way ahead of those of the rest of the world community, and until that changes there's not much hope of the U.N. getting any better.
Still, you can be sure that when American hegemony is undermined by the rise of China the U.S. will use every means at their disposal - including the U.N. - to try and cling on a little longer...
Re:To the U.N. haters: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you think Russia has the resources to put the UN's interests ahead of its own?
Do you think China advances the UN agenda because they want the whole world to be a happy place?
It (the UN) is a great idea on paper, and it should be more relevant, but this idea that it would function better if the US started playing nice is absurd. All play
My/Our Internet (Score:3, Insightful)
When I think about our US government, companies like Verisign and Worldcom, UN, or any other random organization interested in monkeying with MY Internet, I get a little protective. You see, I want this wild-west frontierism -- that is where innovation comes from -- a need for something that did not exist before, and the lack of rules or laws which would prevent me from building those things. Again, the free exchange of ideas.
If China wants to censor themselves, it's all them -- their routers, firewalls, and filters should not apply to me here in the US. I don't like it, but what can I say? That's not my system. The eventuality, is that some Chinese people will figure out ways around this, 'cause that's how the Internet works, right? Route around the failures?
I realize that routers and bandwidth cost money, but when you think about it, if there weren't any people using/administrating/publishing-on it, it wouldn't exist. It is people like me, people like Cmdr Taco (and yes, you too, Zonk), and all you fucked-up readers of Slashdot (and countless others) that make this Internet happen -- all sharing ideas, flames, stories, pictures, porn, and filth. We're all exchanging information between ourselves. This is how it should be, and I'll be damned if I let some assholes (from wherever) interfere with My Internet. Rogue nameservers indeed.
Chicken Little (Score:4, Insightful)
I have heard of no credible evidence that the US is abusing their administration of the internet. Yet other countries want control of it. The only logical conclusion is that these same countries must also have ideas of how the system could be abused, and can't wait to implement them. Censorship is probably on the forefront of each of these countries minds. (Some are worried about it happening, some are salavating at the chance to abuse it.)
Countries know they can not build a corrupt system from the ground up, since no one will use it, so they are attempting to gain control of what people are currently using. I just see transferring control as the equivalent of giving a child a button with "Blow Up World" written on it.
Old Grizzled Engineers (Score:3, Insightful)
And to speak to the political nature.... It the old grizzled engineers that have built and maintained these servers for over 30 years. The internet wouldn't be here if not for them. You wouldn't be reading this if not for them. I'm sorry it has to be this way... but they all live in the US for the most part. And if you don't want to see it all fall apart, you might just want to leave the system be. I will echo an earlier post
The UN wants control for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Syria: "There's more and more spam every day. Who are the victims? Developing and least-developed countries, too. There is no serious intention to stop this spam by those who are the transporters of the spam, because they benefit...The only solution is for us to buy equipment from the countries which send this spam in order to deal with spam. However, this, we believe, is not acceptable."
Brazil, responding to ICANN's approval of .xxx domains: "For those that are still wondering what Triple-X means, let's be specific, Mr. Chairman. They are talking about pornography. These are things that go very deep in our values in many of our countries. In my country, Brazil, we are very worried about this kind of decision-making process where they simply decide upon creating such new top-level generic domain names."
China: "We feel that the public policy issue of Internet should be solved jointly by the sovereign states in the U.N. framework...For instance, spam, network security and cyberspace--we should look for an appropriate specialized agency of the United Nations as a competent body."
Ghana: "There was unanimity for the need for an additional body...This body would therefore address all issues relating to the Internet within the confines of the available expertise which would be anchored at the U.N."
These are the people that want to control the internet. They don't want some hands off technical control, they have specific cultural, moral and economic ideals they wish to implement in relation to the Internet. Yes, spam is bad. But "stopping spam" by a macro control mechanism is a control on information. This is contrary to the legal and user technological controls we are implementing now. Do you trust the UN to actually handle specific information on the Internet via their multicultralism moral compass? I don't.
U.N. Should take control of the BBC... &the Lo (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the CBC should be put under control of the U.N.
After that, we need to get the U.N. to take over the Louvre. After all, the Louvre is considered an important part of our World Heritage, and so should be compelled by an international body to eliminate the clearly western bias of most of the artwork contained within. We just aren't going to accept the arrogant attitude that just because the French built the Louvre, paid for the Louvre, and nurtured the Louvre to be the preeminent art mueseum in the world, that they have the right to control it! Zambia, Bolivia, and North Korea have some wonderful ideas of what they are going to do with the place.
North Americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:North Americans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The proper answer to the UN.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:In other news: U.S. insists on control of Nebra (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unacceptable? (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of attitude doesn't help create a warm fuzzy feeling about the US in the rest of the world.
I didn't know that was the goal of our government. I thought it was to look out for American interests. Not be "warm and fuzzy." Maybe we should have been warm and fuzzy with Hitler. (sorry for the Godwin)
Someone in the Government
What are you talking about. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The idiot has spoken... (Score:3, Funny)
Yup, the Internet has massively dwarfed what the US brought to the t
Re:Stating the obvious... (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for your grand link pasting efforts. However, this is not about nationalism. Being a nation built on immigration we recognize, value, and sometimes improve upon contributions from the world over. The problem with your argument is the US isn't complaining about anything you listed. I'm not aware of anyone complaining that China invented paper money, or China controls the production of paper money. See, I'm not even sure how that fits. We're not complaining about our republican (note: lowercase r) form of government. The closest you come to something that fits the discussion is the world wide web, which is governed by W3C. I'm not aware of any complaints about that, are you?
I'm not saying "US is #1" or "world is teh sux0r!". My point is that the US made the investment in money, time, knowledge, material. We did not send out armies of technicians to secretly wire your countries with network cable. I'm pretty sure you guys said, "Hey, look what they built. That's pretty cool. Let's hook up to it." An alternate scenario has instead, "Hey, look what they built. That's pretty cool. I'm not comfortable with the US governance of this network though. Fortunately the protocol is open and well documented. Let's get build our own similar network, but instead it will be governed by the all countries. If we need to we can bridge to the US network later."
So you see, it could have gone differently but you didn't choose that path. Wishing you had now is sour grapes.
Warmest regards,
A US Citizen